Quick Links

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[The Hobbit] Rough cut is in the wild!

Posts

Buuuuut, I also see a bunch of people going on and on about how this change is unnecessary. And to me that is kinda goosish. Was it unnecessary for Kubrick to shoot some of his films at an odd, taller than long, aspect ratio? Was it unnecessary for Spielberg to use CGI to bring dinosaurs to life? For Lucas to use tons and tons of models to bring around complex space battles? For Ed Wood to be shot in black and white? Experimentation with new/old technology and trying to change up the status quo isn't something that should be shunned. If it works for the film, fantastic, if it doesn't... well at least someone tried it. You could say these things are gimmicky, but they're only gimmicky if done for no reason. Jackson doesn't strike me as the type to do this without having some reason behind it.

In just about all of your examples, the effects in question were being used to somehow inform or enhance the narrative.

What Jackson and Cameron are pushing doesn't do that.

How do you know this? Until you actually see the film you have no idea how the experience will inform the narrative. I really don't see Jackson as a gimmicky director. Nothing in his past work shouts gimmicky. I can understand thinking Cameron is a crazy asshole in love with technology for technology sake, but Jackson seems to be more in love with classic techniques than with technology.

Just look at all the model work done in LOTR and King Kong. Look at all of his earlier films. Even as much as I hated the film, look at the work on the Lovely Bones. It's all classic film making, where the technology is used to inform the narrative. Unless Warner Brothers forced him to work in this way on the Hobbit, I kinda doubt he'd be doing this without reason.

Buuuuut, I also see a bunch of people going on and on about how this change is unnecessary. And to me that is kinda goosish. Was it unnecessary for Kubrick to shoot some of his films at an odd, taller than long, aspect ratio? Was it unnecessary for Spielberg to use CGI to bring dinosaurs to life? For Lucas to use tons and tons of models to bring around complex space battles? For Ed Wood to be shot in black and white? Experimentation with new/old technology and trying to change up the status quo isn't something that should be shunned. If it works for the film, fantastic, if it doesn't... well at least someone tried it. You could say these things are gimmicky, but they're only gimmicky if done for no reason. Jackson doesn't strike me as the type to do this without having some reason behind it.

In just about all of your examples, the effects in question were being used to somehow inform or enhance the narrative.

What Jackson and Cameron are pushing doesn't do that.

How do you know this? Until you actually see the film you have no idea how the experience will inform the narrative. I really don't see Jackson as a gimmicky director. Nothing in his past work shouts gimmicky. I can understand thinking Cameron is a crazy asshole in love with technology for technology sake, but Jackson seems to be more in love with classic techniques than with technology.

Just look at all the model work done in LOTR and King Kong. Look at all of his earlier films. Even as much as I hated the film, look at the work on the Lovely Bones. It's all classic film making, where the technology is used to inform the narrative. Unless Warner Brothers forced him to work in this way on the Hobbit, I kinda doubt he'd be doing this without reason.

How would you suggest that a resolution/framerate enhancement would alter the narrative, especially considering that current resolutions and framerates are doing well enough?

How would you suggest that a resolution/framerate enhancement would alter the narrative, especially considering that current resolutions and framerates are doing well enough?

Would it be enough to say that it could alter / improve the film going experience? I don't know if it really will, but I hate to turn down a potential improvement just because things are fine as they are. Isn't better a good thing?

Buuuuut, I also see a bunch of people going on and on about how this change is unnecessary. And to me that is kinda goosish. Was it unnecessary for Kubrick to shoot some of his films at an odd, taller than long, aspect ratio? Was it unnecessary for Spielberg to use CGI to bring dinosaurs to life? For Lucas to use tons and tons of models to bring around complex space battles? For Ed Wood to be shot in black and white? Experimentation with new/old technology and trying to change up the status quo isn't something that should be shunned. If it works for the film, fantastic, if it doesn't... well at least someone tried it. You could say these things are gimmicky, but they're only gimmicky if done for no reason. Jackson doesn't strike me as the type to do this without having some reason behind it.

In just about all of your examples, the effects in question were being used to somehow inform or enhance the narrative.

What Jackson and Cameron are pushing doesn't do that.

How do you know this? Until you actually see the film you have no idea how the experience will inform the narrative. I really don't see Jackson as a gimmicky director. Nothing in his past work shouts gimmicky. I can understand thinking Cameron is a crazy asshole in love with technology for technology sake, but Jackson seems to be more in love with classic techniques than with technology.

Just look at all the model work done in LOTR and King Kong. Look at all of his earlier films. Even as much as I hated the film, look at the work on the Lovely Bones. It's all classic film making, where the technology is used to inform the narrative. Unless Warner Brothers forced him to work in this way on the Hobbit, I kinda doubt he'd be doing this without reason.

How would you suggest that a resolution/framerate enhancement would alter the narrative, especially considering that current resolutions and framerates are doing well enough?

I don't know. I haven't seen the movie. I'm giving Jackson a chance to prove that this makes sense. I'm not saying it will make sense, I'm saying I'm willing to give it a chance before passing judgment on it. Which is not something you're willing to do. It bothers me to see someone pass judgement on something without having any experience with it. At the moment all we have is impressions from some people who saw unfinished work. It's not first hand knowledge.

As far as the resolution, it may not inform the narrative, but it will provide a much much crisper image when displayed on a large screen. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think it'd be silly for home viewing, but for theater 4k seems to make sense.

It's the 48fps that's the real kicker. From what I know of Jackson he wouldn't be trying this out without a reason. I'm not saying it'll be worth it, but I'm not going to outright pass judgement against it either, at least not until I get to see a whole movie presented with it.

I design stuff. For people. Who want me to. Even here! Just PM me.

0

AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular

I love the book version of LOTR, but I feel the film versions (especially the EEs) are the superior narrative. They cut the right amount of fat away, while injecting some much-needed urgency and cohesion.

The really interesting question about adapting anything from The Silmarillion: do you execute it as a prequel, that clearly occupies the same universe as the Lord of the Rings films, or do you execute it as the tale told by people who occupy that universe?

There are some pretty significant implications for narrative possibilities either way. I vote the latter.

It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

No worries, man. They're tossing all kinds of apocryphal shit into the film. There's whole sections with Galadriel and the White Council and the Loosing of the Nine and the Necromancer and all other manners of stuff.

There's also going to be a lot of stuff bridging The Hobbit and LotR, too. Last I read they weren't allowed to use the stuff in the Silmarillion, but that might change.

IIRC, Warners/New Line/Saul Zaentz have the rights to LOTR and The Hobbit, but not any of the other Tolkien books, and because Christopher Tolkien is a curmudgeonly old bastard, we'll probably never see anything ever come of the Silmarillion.

The really interesting question about adapting anything from The Silmarillion: do you execute it as a prequel, that clearly occupies the same universe as the Lord of the Rings films, or do you execute it as the tale told by people who occupy that universe?

There are some pretty significant implications for narrative possibilities either way. I vote the latter.

The inclusion of "As told by Aragorn" style bookends would give the implication that they were folklore, in contrast to being the history of Middle-earth. The flashback to the Siege of Barad-dûr during FOTR doesn't suffer from that; as the narrator, Elrond, is specifically saying "I was there, here's what happened."

I love the book version of LOTR, but I feel the film versions (especially the EEs) are the superior narrative. They cut the right amount of fat away, while injecting some much-needed urgency and cohesion.

I agree. I'm assuming they'll do the same for The Hobbit, I'd be happy with extra battle scenes thrown in for good measure (hopefully the white council in Mirkwood). As long it's tasteful, although I'd love another cheesy shield slide moment!

Silmarillion is great, but, as I was talking about the "pleasure in reading" PoV, it's actually a lot worse than Hobbit and even LotR. It's VERY stilted (for a reason), very stuffy, and it's tragedy after tragedy after tragedy.

It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

The Hobbit is more then enough book for 2 movies. There's a full movies worth of story just getting to Laketown. And I'm betting that's where the break will be. The whole kurfuffle with the mountain and the dragon and the siege and the battle will be movie 2 and that's more then enough material.

It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

The Hobbit is more then enough book for 2 movies. There's a full movies worth of story just getting to Laketown. And I'm betting that's where the break will be. The whole kurfuffle with the mountain and the dragon and the siege and the battle will be movie 2 and that's more then enough material.

I think in terms of pacing ending the first movie at Beorns house would work better. You get the escape from the goblins and the stuff from the chapter "Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire" as the climax of the first movie with chillin' at Beorns house as the resolution.

The really interesting question about adapting anything from The Silmarillion: do you execute it as a prequel, that clearly occupies the same universe as the Lord of the Rings films, or do you execute it as the tale told by people who occupy that universe?

There are some pretty significant implications for narrative possibilities either way. I vote the latter.

The inclusion of "As told by Aragorn" style bookends would give the implication that they were folklore, in contrast to being the history of Middle-earth. The flashback to the Siege of Barad-dûr during FOTR doesn't suffer from that; as the narrator, Elrond, is specifically saying "I was there, here's what happened."

In the book, the Silmarillion itself is presented as the vaugely remembered stories passed down to the elves in Aman and remembered by the exiles in middle earth.

Now they are better than real-world oral traditions (which do not retain any historical accuracy for any signifigant period of time) in that there are a few individuals still alive who have a living memory of the events of the first age (though a very few indeed).

But on the other hand, elves in middle earth are not D&D elves: they are not just humans with pointy ears. They view the world differerently and the line between myth and history is not a stark one in their tales. Galadriel, for example, is at least something on the order of nine thousand years old. Probably a lot more. That's going to be a very different worldview than that of a hobbit (which is the stand-in for a modern audience).

I had thought that the Silmarillion would maybe work with a montage of silent short scenes set to music. No talking, just history washing over the audience. Would have narrow appeal tho!

some bits you'd kind of have to do that way. It's a real hodgepodge of different materiel. Some stories are very present, action filled narratives (like The Hobbit) and some are remote and vauge (esp anything related to the "gods" and their actions).

I had thought that the Silmarillion would maybe work with a montage of silent short scenes set to music. No talking, just history washing over the audience. Would have narrow appeal tho!

some bits you'd kind of have to do that way. It's a real hodgepodge of different materiel. Some stories are very present, action filled narratives (like The Hobbit) and some are remote and vauge (esp anything related to the "gods" and their actions).

It might work as a sort of mini-series

You can't tell me that the Narn i Chîn Húrin wouldn't make for a fucking epic film (or pair of films) though.

It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

The Hobbit is more then enough book for 2 movies. There's a full movies worth of story just getting to Laketown. And I'm betting that's where the break will be. The whole kurfuffle with the mountain and the dragon and the siege and the battle will be movie 2 and that's more then enough material.

I think in terms of pacing ending the first movie at Beorns house would work better. You get the escape from the goblins and the stuff from the chapter "Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire" as the climax of the first movie with chillin' at Beorns house as the resolution.

Yeah, that would work really well. There's a lot of stuff that happens in The Hobbit, to do it justice it would have to be really long anyway. Better to add a little bit and make it 2 movies.

It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

The Hobbit is more then enough book for 2 movies. There's a full movies worth of story just getting to Laketown. And I'm betting that's where the break will be. The whole kurfuffle with the mountain and the dragon and the siege and the battle will be movie 2 and that's more then enough material.

I think in terms of pacing ending the first movie at Beorns house would work better. You get the escape from the goblins and the stuff from the chapter "Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire" as the climax of the first movie with chillin' at Beorns house as the resolution.

Yeah, that would work really well. There's a lot of stuff that happens in The Hobbit, to do it justice it would have to be really long anyway. Better to add a little bit and make it 2 movies.

I'm trying to stay away from too many spoilers, but it seems that Jackson is working hard to not only get in all the goodness from source material, but also throw in both a good bit about the goings on in Middle Earth around the same time (the White Council, et al) and events that would tie the Hobbit films to the greater LOTR story (the Loosing of the Nine).

I had thought that the Silmarillion would maybe work with a montage of silent short scenes set to music. No talking, just history washing over the audience. Would have narrow appeal tho!

some bits you'd kind of have to do that way. It's a real hodgepodge of different materiel. Some stories are very present, action filled narratives (like The Hobbit) and some are remote and vauge (esp anything related to the "gods" and their actions).

It might work as a sort of mini-series

You can't tell me that the Narn i Chîn Húrin wouldn't make for a fucking epic film (or pair of films) though.

It's weird that they are dividing the Hobbit into two movies. Oh, I know it is all the rage since HP did it but if you really look at the Hobbit you'll see that it has a very condensed narrative already that could easily be adapted to a single 2 hour, 20-30 minutes.

What I'm worried about the most is that part 1 is the meat of the book and part 2 is a two hour long version of the battle of five armies...which takes about five pages in the book.

The Hobbit is more then enough book for 2 movies. There's a full movies worth of story just getting to Laketown. And I'm betting that's where the break will be. The whole kurfuffle with the mountain and the dragon and the siege and the battle will be movie 2 and that's more then enough material.

I think in terms of pacing ending the first movie at Beorns house would work better. You get the escape from the goblins and the stuff from the chapter "Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire" as the climax of the first movie with chillin' at Beorns house as the resolution.

Yeah, that would work really well. There's a lot of stuff that happens in The Hobbit, to do it justice it would have to be really long anyway. Better to add a little bit and make it 2 movies.

I'm trying to stay away from too many spoilers, but it seems that Jackson is working hard to not only get in all the goodness from source material, but also throw in both a good bit about the goings on in Middle Earth around the same time (the White Council, et al) and events that would tie the Hobbit films to the greater LOTR story (the Loosing of the Nine).

That could be interesting if handled well. Unfortunatly some of the changes from the source materiel in the LOTR movies were really against the grain of the books so I hope they handle it delicately.

It's easy to miss that there is a lot of time between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring. In the appendices for The Return of the King there is some info / timelines about the period.

Theoden, the old king of Rohan in LOTR is born 6 years after the end of The Hobbit.

Sauron return to Mordor and begins rebuilding the dark tower about 10 years after the end of the Hobbit.

Aragorn (who is 10 years old at the start of The Hobbit and about 87 years old at the start of LOTR) wanders around going on adventures under a couple different assumed names. First as a Rider of Rohan then in Minas Tirith where he became a famous captain in their wars and eventually led a raid on the corsairs of Umbar (this was when Denethor was a young man and they were something of rivals for fame, which is part of why Denethor is so bitter about the coming of Aragorn to the city in LOTR).